As many of you may recall, on July 10 of this year, I had shared a list of additional temple prospects which I was considering adding to my main list of those locations that could have a temple announced next October. In the 15 days since that post, I have periodically looked into both those locations that were suggested to me, and also some other locations which may, for various reasons, be prime candidates for a temple.
I also looked extensively at the feedback that has come in from you, my readers, in that regard. And based on that, I expanded my list quite a bit (including moving some candidates on the other two lists I have been keeping of less imminently likely locations and also long-shot prospects onto this list.
Based on the additional feedback which may be provided on this altered list, I can then look more deeply into which of these locations should be added to the main list for October, which would include adding the relevant notes about such locations to my predictions for the upcoming General Conference.
The main unknowns about any potential temple prospects are, of course, to what extent the temple-building legacy of President Nelson will expand the number of temples, how frequently we might see temples announced, the number of temples that could be identified each time there are new ones announced, whether President Nelson's plan involves a smaller-scale design that will still be serviceable, and the speed at which the current and potential future backlog of temples announced and under construction can continued to be cleared.
As I noted in other posts, by mid-2020, all temples currently under construction (from Concepcion Chile to Winnipeg Manitoba) will be dedicated. By that time, hopefully at least 12 others might also be under construction,. It will certainly be interesting to see what happens between now and then. I will continue to monitor all such developments and will do my level best to bring those to you as I receive word of them.
The updated list of locations I am currently determining whether or not to add to my main list of those that could potentially be announced in October follows below. Most notably, while previous lists did not include candidates for the next temples in Canada and California, this version includes 2 Canadian and 1 Californian prospect.
One thing that might potentially affect the current and future temples of the Church in California is whether or not that state ever successfully splits into 2 or more smaller states. I have been reading more lately about a venture capitalist that has tried and failed at least twice to split that state into several smaller ones.
The most recent proposal to do so got enough signatures to appear on the ballot for the November 2018 General Elections, but apparently the Supreme Court of the State of California pulled the measure from the ballot to allow more study on the proposition. So for now, that is essentially a dead initiative, but if California (or other states) wind up splitting, or if the US admits any other states into the Union, the temples in such regions could potentially be renamed, which, insofar as I have been able to ascertain, has never occurred.
That said, the updated version of the list follows below. Please feel free to let me know whether I need to eliminate any of these locations, replace them with more likely prospects, or have overlooked any other feasible options for the near future. Again, this is not meant to be an exhaustive list to cover all possibilities that ever may get a temple. This list focuses only on those prospects which I should specifically add to the other locations for my October 2018 General Conference. Your comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated.
So as not to disturb the flow of that information, I will end here now as I traditionally do. That does it for this post. Thank you for the privilege of your time. If you enjoyed what you read here and would like to stay informed of newly-added content, please feel free to subscribe. Until my next post, I wish each one of you all the best and pray that the Lord will bless you all in everything you do.
List of additional potential locations that may get a
temple in the near future:
Africa Southeast: Kampala Uganda; Maputo Mozambique; Lubumbashi
DR Congo; Cape Town South Africa
Africa West: Monrovia Liberia; Yamoussoukro Ivory Coast
Asia: Ulaanbaatar Mongolia; Taichung Taiwan
Asia North: Osaka Japan
Brazil: Rio Grande Brazil; Florianopolis Brazil;
Alphaville Brazil (or a second in Sao Paulo)
Europe: Edinburgh Scotland; Vienna Austria
Idaho: Preston Idaho
Mexico: Queretaro Mexico
North America Central: Wichita Kansas; Lethbridge
Alberta; Green Bay Wisconsin; Des Moines Iowa
North America Northeast: Augusta Maine; Hamilton Ontario;
Morristown/East Brunswick New Jersey; Concord New Hampshire; Montpelier Vermont
North America Southeast: Jacksonville Florida; Knoxville
Tennessee
North America West: Bakersfield California
Pacific: Tarawa Kiribati; Pago Pago American Samoa; Savai'i
Samoa; Neiafu Vava'u Tonga
Philippines: Davao Philippines
South America Northwest: Maracaibo Venezuela; Iquitos
Peru; Cali/Medellin Colombia
South America South: Antofagasta/Valparaiso Chile;
Neuquen Argentina
Have you considered Madagascar or 2nd South Korea? How busy is the Las Vegas temple? I wonder of another temple is due in that area.
ReplyDeleteHello, Chris! Thanks for taking time to comment. As I mentioned above, the list I shared yesterday is the second list of locations I am considering adding to the main list of prospects I assembled which are featured among the October 2018 General Conference predictions I shared earlier. I believe that a temple in Madagascar was listed among those prospects. You can feel free to double-check me on that, and to let me know if that is not the case.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, I looked into the established stakes in South Korea, but without knowing the specific number of congregations in each stake, it may be difficult to determine where a second temple in South Korea might feasibly be placed.
That said, if the Church builds another temple in Japan, it may possibly turn out that some of the South Korean stakes could be served by that new Japan temple. But that is based on what I can tell from initial research. I may do more research as I can on that prospect.
I don't know exactly how busy the Las Vegas Nevada temple might be. A while back, I had a temple in Henderson among my list of immediate prospects. But the need for a temple in Elko or Ely may be a more compelling case. And unless President Nelson's plan involves mobilizing crews to build much smaller temples everywhere in the world (which may or may not be the case), then the announcement of a temple in either Elko or Ely may delay the prospect of one which will split the Las Vegas temple.
I will have to give your feedback some more thought. Thanks, Chris, for taking time to comment.
I think Elko is part of the Salt Lake Temple district.
ReplyDeleteEly may be part of the Payson district, but I am not sure.
Elko is indeed part of the Salt Lake district. With the dedication of the Cedar City Temple, the Ely Saints have been reassigned there. Both are over the 200 mile goal previous Church presidents have set. By comparison, the prospect of a temple to potentially split the current Las Vegas district may be a less imminent need, but as I noted above, I will be watching for anything that would indicate that prospect is more imminent.
DeleteThank you for commenting, Chris!
DeleteLas Vegas 2 I would put in the midterm, not first up but a few years, reasonable growth there means no time to rush it. A site north of Carey or Lone Mountain on the west side, with access to a new freeway that they have been working on is a good possibility, the current one is a few degrees north of due east fromthe Stratosphere, the temple is pointed out from the lower observation deck (the enclosed one).
ReplyDeleteSao Paulo 2 I think they would put on the est end of that, the current one is closer in but to the southwest. A stake president interviewed on Mormon Channel years ago said a car drive from the Penha neighborhood took 90 minutes, over two hours if you caught a bus.
Forther north in the far north of Sao Paulo state the city of Ribeiro Preto has several stakes, so a district would take northern Sao Paulo, small parts of Minas Gerais, and the southern half of Goias state.
And don't forget Salvador and Belo Horizonte. Natal may have several stakes and it may just be far enough from Recife two states south of it to maybe need to be considered.
I agree with you on Las Vegas 2, James Anderson. A second temple to split the Sao Paulo district seems to be very likely. While I have offered my opinion of one or two cities that could best do that. But I will be doing more study in that regard in the near future, specially since a 90-120 minute drive may be arduous journey for Saints living elsewhere within the Sao Paulo district. Given the unprecedented way in which second temples have been announced in Manila Philippines and Lima Peru, a second temple in the Sao Paulo region seems to be just a matter of time.
DeleteI have had Salvador and Belo Horizonte on my list for the near future for the last little while, and both are on the original list I shared with my other predictions for the October General Conference. The list above is more focused on prospects I am considering adding to that list, rather than on those that are already on it. I will keep Natal on my radar for the near future. Thanks, James Anderson!
Hello again, everyone! While I continue to welcome comments on this revised list of additional prospects, unless there is something I need to change on it, I will begin adding these locations to my main list for October. Again, feedback will be accepted on both the list in this post and the initial one I posted until the week before General Conference. Barring a miracle, it is looking like I will not be able to revisit the series of those prospects as I hoped to do for this go-round. But stay tuned for the new complete list, in addition to updated information on current and future temples as I become aware of such developments. Thanks again to you all.
ReplyDeleteNothing for Papua New Guinea?
ReplyDeleteHow far is Fairbanks from Anchorage?
Eduardo, thank you for commenting. As I mentioned on the LDS Church Growth Blog, I have two lists for potential temple prospects which I am working on compiling. This is the second of those two lists. The first of those (containing the original prospects I had listed for the October General Conference) can be found at the address below:
ReplyDeletehttp://stokessoundsoff.blogspot.com/2018/07/october-2018-temple-site-possibilities.html
On that list, I have included a temple for Papua New Guinea, and in the associated note, I reiterated the fact that land has been set aside in Port Moresby for such a temple once the right conditions are met for it.
If you see anything on that list or the list above that you have a question on, I will be happy to address those at that time. In the meantime, Fairbanks is 360.6 miles from Anchorage. The information I have available indicates that there are 8 stakes in Alaska at present, which does not make a hugely-sized temple district. But due to the mileage between Fairbanks and Anchorage being so high, a temple in Fairbanks may be more imminently possible than many (myself included) might believe. I will have to do some thinking and studying on that. Thanks for stopping by to comment, Eduardo, and please feel free to let me know if you have any other questions or comments. I always appreciated hearing from you.
I have not thought about a temple in Fairbanks. But the idea of Fairbanks temple may not sound so far fetched. We are building a temple in Winnipeg Manitoba for only one stake. Winnipeg is a simmilar distance from Regina Saskatchewan at about 358.7 miles. Winepeg is also about 375 miles from Bismarck ND. How is the church in Fairbanks?
ReplyDeleteWe are living in exciting times. It was twenty-one years ago last month the church had a great article on temples in the June 1997 Ensign. It was talking about the enprecedented growth. That month we had just dedicated 50th temple in St. Louis MO. That temple generated excitement in two ways. It not only was number 50. But a lot of people I knew we're excited that it was in Missouri. We have several proposed Missouri temples from the pioneer era that were never built (although they were on the opposite side of the state). Who would have thought that in just over three years after the St.Louis Temple dedication, the number of dedicated temples would more than double?
Thank you for those thoughts, Chris. I recognize that the precedent set by the temple in Winnipeg may mean that a temple could be built to serve one or two stakes. Whether or not that happens will, of course, be determined by the extent to which President Nelson's temple plans go. As I mentioned above, the Anchorage temple currently only serves 8 stakes. I would have to double-check, but there may be only one stake in Fairbanks. Aside from that, I do not have any indication how the Church is Fairbanks is.
DeleteThe Church News ran an article recently about how the first of President Hinckley's "smaller temples" was dedicated at around this time 20 years ago. As you mentioned, Chris, we saw the number of temples more than double in a few short years during the late 1990s and early 2000s. If President Nelson is of a mind to double the current number again within the period of a few short years, we will surely be in for a windfall of temple announcements, to say nothing of increased temple construction milestones. It will be interesting to see that unfold. Thanks, Chris!
Just under 15 years after St. Louis was dedicated, a temple was dedicated in Kansas City. This is very near sites proposed and dedicated by Joseph Smith. It is only 14 miles from the Indendence MO temple lot. In addition the Far West site is only 44 miles away and Adam-Ondi-Ahaman is about 68 miles from the Kansas City Temple. Outside of Utah and few other places this is very close and serves the same region that those temples would have served.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this additional comment as well, Chris. I know that a lot of people I knew were excited about the announcement of the Kansas City, MO temple, and they took it as a major sign and fulfillment of prophecy.
DeleteWhile a temple dedicated anywhere is exciting on many levels, I have somewhat of a hard time believing that the Kansas City, MO temple will take the place of the other temples in the locations you mentioned. I feel that way for a few reasons.
First, although we have the recorded word of the Lord excusing the early Saints from the commandment to build those temples because they faced persecution in trying to get that done, I have not seen anything said, either in public or private discourse from Church leaders that the Kansas City temple would be built in place of those other temples, or that modern Saints are likewise excused from building on those sites now that the persecution is no longer a factor.
Also, although I would have to double-check it to be sure, I believe the Lord was very clear in those revelations about why the temples in those locations would be important in the grand scheme of things, and particularly in the days leading up to His Second Coming.
Additionally, with more having been said in recent weeks regarding President Nelson's massive plans to expand the number of temples, I believe we may see him inspired to announce temples in many of the locations that the early Saints failed to build temples on due to that early persecution.
Whatever might actually occur in regards to that expansion in the number and availability of temples worldwide, it will be interesting to see it all unfold. As I have previously noted, if President Nelson's plans involve again doubling the number of operating temples in a few short years, or anything more extensive than that, then literally nothing is off the table in terms of a future prospect, which, by extension, may apply to many of those early sites where those temples could not previously be built.
A few other points crossed my mind which I wanted to mention as well, but by the time I tried to write them down in this comment, they had slipped my mind. I will be sure to pass those additional thoughts along if they come back to me. In the meantime, I am continuing to monitor all temple developments and will do my best to bring them here to you all as I receive word of them. Thanks again for this additional comment, Chris. I always appreciate hearing from you.